Timeline for Quitting an exploitative job
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
23 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 3, 2012 at 13:32 | comment | added | IDrinkandIKnowThings | @DavidNavarre - In every Non-Compete I have ever signed the Attorneys fees are assigned to the losing party. This is not statutory but it is defacto for non-competes. | |
| Aug 3, 2012 at 13:26 | comment | added | David Navarre | @Chad Loser pays? This is the first time I've been glad we don't have that system in the US. | |
| Aug 3, 2012 at 13:24 | comment | added | IDrinkandIKnowThings | @DavidNavarre - The loser pays the lawyer fees... if it is a solid and enforceable agreement then that equals the former employee. Generally you find out about the trips to Tahiti(Vegas/Monte Carlo/Amsterdam) after the company goes under. | |
| Aug 3, 2012 at 13:19 | comment | added | David Navarre | @Chad Yes, I assumed that "salary problems" and late payments meant money problems. If the OP had mentioned the lavishness on other items, it would have been clear that it wasn't. In my experience, those who choose to do other things with that money end up having money problems and going out of business. If my goal was to enjoy lavish business trips to Tahiti, I would hesitate to waste money on lawyers chasing down employees - one day of a lawyer's time is several bottles of Johnnie Walker Blue. | |
| Aug 3, 2012 at 13:07 | comment | added | IDrinkandIKnowThings | @DavidNavarre - You are assuming that the reason they are having trouble making payroll is money problems... It has been my experience that in companies like this the problem is management of that money. They are willing to spend money to chase down employees violating their agreements. It is not that they can not make payroll but instead choose to do other things with that money... like boats, planes, lavish "business" trips to tahiti... | |
| Aug 3, 2012 at 12:41 | comment | added | David Navarre | When you mentioned "salary issues" and late payments I assumed you meant they had cash flow problems. I would, however, expect that if they pay their employees only begrudgingly, they are going to do the same with vendors, including lawyers and have a reputation for doing that. | |
| Aug 3, 2012 at 6:46 | comment | added | neeks | @DavidNavarre The firm is not cash stripped as they have payed people regularly & spend nicely on other company events. Its more about the mentality of keeping people docked @ the company. Three months notice + due salary + fear of not getting relieving documents = people not being able to leave easily. | |
| Aug 2, 2012 at 21:12 | comment | added | David Navarre | @Chad A firm that is struggling to meet payroll will likely find it challenging to hire lawyer to try to recover funds from the departed employee and will likely simply use it as justification for keeping any salary "due". Similarly, such a financially strapped firm is unlikely to be able to enforce a non-compete, since lawyers don't work pro-bono. So I don't think Ramhound is giving bad advice. It fits the details provided. | |
| Aug 2, 2012 at 19:27 | answer | added | neeks | timeline score: 4 | |
| Aug 1, 2012 at 21:26 | comment | added | user718 | If this is in India, which by your profile I figure it is, the rules there favor the companies very much. In the USA, in most every state, the 3 month notice thing is un-enforceable, and if an employer fails to pay you on time just once, you can quit and draw uncontested meager un-employment while you look for another job. | |
| Aug 1, 2012 at 18:33 | comment | added | Naftali | @neeks some more helpful advice | |
| Aug 1, 2012 at 15:51 | history | edited | Zelda |
edited tags
|
|
| Aug 1, 2012 at 15:44 | comment | added | IDrinkandIKnowThings | @Ramhound - What if the contract states that they will have to pay a monetary penalty for not providing appropriate notice? It could also prevent them from performing the same job function at another firm. That is bad advice to give when you do not have the full context. | |
| Aug 1, 2012 at 15:39 | comment | added | Donald | My advice. Quit the day after the last check you are owed is paid. Since the pay checks are already late, you could recover the rest by hiring a laywer, if you can afford it. Since the pay checks are late, the likelyhood of getting the money is slim, leave this job as quickly as you can. | |
| Aug 1, 2012 at 15:36 | comment | added | IDrinkandIKnowThings | What country (state if it is the US)? Many times that 3 month notice is unenforceable. | |
| S Aug 1, 2012 at 13:50 | history | suggested | yoozer8 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Cleaned up title
|
| Aug 1, 2012 at 13:39 | comment | added | acolyte | Every fibre of my being wants to suggest the Cartman strategy from South Park...but it's neither professional or appropriate. it'll all lie within the scope of your local laws | |
| Aug 1, 2012 at 13:36 | answer | added | bethlakshmi | timeline score: 29 | |
| Aug 1, 2012 at 12:54 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Aug 1, 2012 at 13:50 | |||||
| Aug 1, 2012 at 11:00 | comment | added | maple_shaft | What a bunch of bullies. Please don't follow this advice, but if it were me I would I would rather walk out and be unemployed immediately than be treated without dignity and respect. | |
| Aug 1, 2012 at 10:48 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackWorkplace/status/230615965233197056 | ||
| Aug 1, 2012 at 10:07 | answer | added | ChrisF | timeline score: 25 | |
| Aug 1, 2012 at 9:55 | history | asked | neeks | CC BY-SA 3.0 |